FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 243416. February 11, 2019.]
THE ESTATE OF JAIME T. TORRES, REPRESENTED BY MYRNA M. TORRES, petitioner,vs. L4R REALTY AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedFebruary 11, 2019which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 243416 — The Estate of Jaime T. Torres, represented by Myrna M. Torres, Petitioner, v. L4R Realty and Development Corporation, Respondent.
After carefully reviewing the allegations, issues, and arguments adduced in the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari, the Court resolves to DENY the same for failure of the petitioner to sufficiently show that the Court of Appeals (CA), in CA-G.R. SP No. 152723, committed any reversible error in affirming the Regional Trial Court's (RTC) September 1, 2016 and January 27, 2017 Orders.
In Domingo v. Singson, 1 this Court has ruled:
It should be stressed that procedural rules are not to be disregarded or dismissed simply because their nonobservance may have resulted in prejudice to a party's substantive rights. Like all rules[,] they are to be followed, except only when for the most persuasive of reasons they may be relaxed to relieve a litigant of an injustice not commensurate with the degree of his[/her] thoughtlessness in not complying with the procedure prescribed. 2
Here, being the plaintiff, petitioner's failure to personally appear during the scheduled pre-trial conference and to file the necessary pre-trial brief are fatal and cannot be excused. Said omissions amount to wanton disregard of procedural rules. Thus, we do not find any cogent reason to depart from the uniform rulings of the lower courts.
Moreover, an unsubstantiated allegation that petitioner "is very much interested in prosecuting the present case" 3 will not suffice. To look into the veracity of such claim would require this Court to review anew the factual issues of the civil case. The same holds true regarding the reasons behind petitioner's failure to appear during pre-trial and its allegations over the attendance of its administratrix before the RTC. These factual issues are beyond the ambit of the instant petition as Section 1, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court explicitly provides that a petition for review on certiorari shall raise only questions of law, which must be distinctly set forth. This Court is not a trier of facts. While there are recognized exceptions to the aforesaid rule, none exists in this case.
ACCORDINGLY, the Court resolves to AFFIRM the Decision dated July 26, 2018 and Resolution dated November 14, 2018 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 152723.
The Registry of Deeds of Antipolo City is dropped as party-respondent pursuant to Section 4 (a), Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. G.R. Nos. 203287 and 207936, April 5, 2017, 822 SCRA 401.
2.Id. at 414, citing Social Security System v. Chaves, 483 Phil. 292, 301 (2004).
3.Rollo, pp. 13 and 29.